Hey, you! Yeah YOU!
How come you haven't registered? Have you read about our new blue star program? We are donating $10 of each blue star subscription to the Blue Ribbon Coalition to ensure that we will have trails to recreate on for years to come.
Our blue star comes with all the benefits of a red star such as 10 second searching, blue/red star member only giveaways, access to the private blue/red star member forums, etc.

I think you missed the point of these meetings. They may allow a bitch about the AP, but they carry much more at stake than a stinking $30/year pass. These meetings start the planning process that will determine the plan for OHV use for the next ten to fifteen years. Do not get sidetracked on the adventure pass issue.

The USFS charter has always been a multiple sustained use priority, including recreation, not species and habitat protection as a priority. This change occurred in the last days of the last Administration by rule making changes. This is where we have to make a stand as responsible OHV users, demand the original charter be maintained. Demand that OHV use be recognized as legitimate and that resource damage be recognized as an acceptable result of serving the public need for recreation.

I would not focus on too much philosophy of policy at this time. The USFS has no idea what the new leadership will do (and most want change back to a more traditional role) so it is not time to criticize.

What is needed is public requests for more family oriented OHV recreation.

Request that OHV trails be linked into loop and interconnected trail systems.

Report the traffic concerns and dangers of cherry stem and dead end trails, and the need to build bypasses and loops.

Realize more green sticker OHV trails will result in more street legal OHV roads.

These meetings are early public input, details will follow in later meetings.

==========

Now let me bitch about the Adventure Pass (local use fees) and your implied position (consider my post regarding a petition on www.petitiononline.com ):

"We, the undersigned, object to the proposed collection of additional user fees (for parking, hiking, camping, riding, etc.; Public Law 104-134) outside of developed campgrounds on our public lands (US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, US Park Service, and US Fish and Wildlife) for the following reasons: "

--

User fee objections are a big issue on the West Coast where we have "Adventure Pass" fees for parking in National Forests. It is legal to drive and stop anywhere on the Forest, without a pass, but a pass is required to park and go on an extended hike. You need a pass to leave an unattended vehicle. A pass is not needed in paid-use developed campgrounds (even remote campgrounds). It is a local use fee where the revenue goes into the local land managers budget, not to the general fund.

It appears to be double taxation on the surface, and it may be, but it is also a locally directed source of funds for expenses specific to an area.

User fees also are not new. Hunting and fishing license fees are common. Local boating use fees are common. OHV license fees are also popular. Many users are willing to pay for their specialized use, and to have the funds improve the habitat for all users, but some groups cringe at the thought of paying for their own choice of use (and further cringe at the thought that funds may help other recreation choices they want abolished).

Read this petition carefully:

Note that it objects to collection of user fees outside of developed campgrounds, but not campground fees. Who do you think this benefits?

"· We oppose plans to charge users of backcountry and undeveloped areas to pay for development of campgrounds and "front country" they are not, and may have no intention, of using. "

Guess what groups demand sole and undisturbed use of "backcountry?" What group has no intention of ever using front country recreation areas, and couldn't care less about other's recreation needs?

Understand that the fastest growing cost of managing public lands is the cost of litigation defense. Lawsuits (even those settled out of court) cost money. We taxpayers pay these costs, and the land management agencies must pay for these litigation costs before expending the budget on conservation, habitat improvement, or maintenance (including road maintenance). The lawsuit settlements typically direct where general budget funds must be spent as a priority, leaving all other issues underfunded.

Paying the bills for a land agency is much like paying personal bills, and when we are forced to pay fines and legal fees the other items in the budget go unfinished. This is the sad state of affairs with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) violation lawsuits filed every day by special interest groups (usually from San Francisco or Tucson). These groups would rather direct where the budget be spent, and have all other management needs be neglected (to the point of failure, public hazard, or habitat endangerment) until the only reasonable solution is closure and public restriction (except for their chosen backcountry recreation).

Realize that user fee revenue is not general budget funding. It is not available to pay off litigation settlements. It is exempt from direction from DC (or San Francisco) as it must be allocated locally, on locally directed needs. Some groups fear local control of funds because it may not benefit one of their favorite user groups. Local control of funds may actually work against these groups goals, by fixing problems that will lead to closures if left unaddressed.

Managers strive to address local needs. Improving public access to the land is a major priority. Making access possible without damage to the habitat is a priority local need (imagine what a resident would like to have done rather than a person hundreds of miles away). User fees address these local image problems: more toilets, more trash bins, better trail signs, better parking lots, and coordinated labor/volunteer programs with local residents.

Does any of this sound like a bad thing?

I know that Cal4Wheel opposes user fees, and many off-road recreation groups oppose user fees, but if you want to play you must fund the management of the playground. The land classification that requires the least amount of funding to manage is designated Wilderness. Unless we want everything managed as Wilderness (to the exclusion of vehicles) we need to wake up.

Let me know what you think -- and let me know if you want to post this (as it should be considered).

Happy Trails!
Ed A. Stevens

<FONT COLOR="yellow">He is right about the Greater Importance of these meetings to the future of our sport. I chose to focus my heading on only one issue (possibly not the proper choice for the situation, instead of the greater picture. I am well aware of the Importance of these meetings and should have probably expressed that fact earlier. After all this plan is only updated every 15 years! That means your input NOW will shape the way your kids (and possibly grandkids) can recreate in our NFs over the next 15 years.
We need to attend these meetings to be involved in preserving access to our National Forests. Our local officials need to hear from US, this is the only way they will know what we want.
He also listed some important points anyone writing letters should include include in their concerns. These points along with a few of your own would carry a stronger impact if delivered in person to one of the meetings listed above. If you are not able to attend a meeting, then by all means mail in your comments...

Make sure you do your part to keep the NFs for the people instead of from the people.

PS - I would like to apoligze if I mislead anyone with my subject heading, as it was not my original intent to do so.
PSD</FONT c>

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.